9 Republic V Sandiganbayan PDF

2/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 375
VOL. 375, JANUARY 30, 2002 145

Republic vs. Sandiganbayan
*
G.R. No. 102508. January 30, 2002.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.

SANDIGANBAYAN, Third Division, JOLLY R. BUGARIN,
respondents.
Remedial Law; Courts; Jurisdiction; The appellate

jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over decisions or final orders of
the Sandiganbayan is limited only to questions of law; Questions
of law distinguished from question of facts.—It is well-settled that
the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over decisions or
final orders of the Sandiganbayan is limited only to questions of
law. A question of law exists when the doubt or controversy
concerns the correct application of law or jurisprudence to a cer-
_______________
* EN BANC.
146
146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
tain set of facts; or when the issue does not call for an
examination of the probative value of the evidence presented, the
truth or falsehood of facts being admitted. A question of fact exists
when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of
facts or when the query invites calibration of the whole evidence
considering mainly the credibility of the witnesses, the existence
and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances as well as
their relation to each other and to the whole, and the probability
of the situation.
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001705de1a290ab638408003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/23
Same; Same; Same; Supreme Court is not a trier of facts.—

The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. It is not the Court’s
function to examine and weigh all over again the evidence
presented in the proceedings below. Thus, it is the policy of the
Court to sustain the factual findings of the trial court, such as the
Sandiganbayan, on the reasonable presumption that the latter
court is in a better position to assess the evidence before it.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Sandiganbayan.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

The Solicitor General for petitioner.
Crisostomo A. Quizon for private respondent.
**
DAVIDE, JR., C.J.:
Persistent in its efforts to recover the alleged unexplained

wealth amassed by private respondent Jolly R. Bugarin, a
government official during the Marcos regime, petitioner
Republic of the Philippines implores this Court to reverse
and set aside1 the 13 August 1991 Decision of the
Sandiganbayan dismissing, for insuf-
_______________
** This case was reassigned to the ponente pursuant to the Resolution of

27 February 2001 in A.M. No. 00-9-03-SC.
1 Per Associate Justice Augusto M. Amores, with the concurrence of
Associate Justices Conrado M. Molina and Sabino R. de Leon, Jr. (now
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court). Original Records (OR), 696.
147
VOL. 375, JANUARY 30, 2002 147

ficiency of evidence, its petition for forfeiture

2
of properties
filed pursuant to Republic
3
Act No. 1379, as amended.
In its petition filed with the Sandiganbayan on 3
August 1987, petitioner, represented by the Presidential
Commission on Good Government (PCGG), averred that
respondent Bugarin acquired during his incumbency as
Director of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) real
and personal properties enumerated in paragraph 5 thereof
whose aggregate fair market value at the time of their
acquisition was P6,313,632.56. Allegedly, those properties
were manifestly in excess or out of proportion to his
salaries, allowances, and other emoluments from 1 July

1967 to 15 March 1986 totalling P743,243.65
4
only.
In his Answer with Explanation, Bugarin claimed that
some of the properties enumerated in paragraph 5 of the
petition were acquired by him and his wife before he
became a Director of the NBI. The acquisition cost of the
properties he acquired during his incumbency was
P2,793,141.26 only. He likewise alleged that apart from the
P743,243.65 he received for the entire period of his service
as NBI Director, he also received allowances from the
Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) totalling P74,500.00; the
National Police Commission (Napolcom), P148,032.24; the
Central Bank, P834,700.00; and the Law Firm of San Juan,
Africa, Gonzales, and San Agustin, P490,000.00. He and
also derived substantial income from the investments and
properties he and his wife acquired before he became a
Director of the NBI.
During the trial, respondent Bugarin presented fifteen
witnesses, including himself, as well as documentary
evidence marked as Exhibits “1” to “48.” A summary of his
property acquisitions follows:
_______________
2 Entitled An Act Declaring Forfeiture in Favor of the State Any

Property Found to Have Been Unlawfully Acquired by Any Public Officer
or Employee and Providing for the Proceedings Therefor.
3 OR, 1.
4 Id., 228.
148

REAL PROPERTY YEAR ACQUISITION

ACQUIRED COST
1. Residential lot in
5
Dasmariñas 1968 P91,140
Village, Makati
2. Nine (9) Residential
6
lots, 1968 9,340
Tagaytay City
3. Residential House
7
Dasmariñas 1969 175,900
Village, Makati
4. Residential Lot, Greenhills,
8
1973 87,288
San Juan, Metro Manila
5. Residential Lot, Capitol
9
1972 72,750
District Quezon City
REAL PROPERTY YEAR ACQUISITION

ACQUIRED COST
6. Condominium Unit, Montepino
10
1973 100,000
Condominium, Baguio City
7. Residential 11
Lot Valle Verde, 1976 263,165
Pasig, M.M.
8. Residential 12
House Valle Verde, 1978 250,000
Pasig, M.M.
9. Residential Lot Calapan,
13
1978 5,000
Oriental Mindoro
10. Orchard & Cocoland Puerto
14
1978 1,000
Galera, Oriental Mindoro
11. Residential
15
House Greenhills, 1980 650,000
San Juan
TOTAL P1,705,583
_______________
5 Exhibits “1,” “1-B” and “1-C.”

6 Exhs. “15”, “17”, “17-A” and “17-D”.
7 Exhs. “2” and “2-B.”
8 Exh. “9.”
9 Exhs. “10” and “12.”
10 Exhs. “18” and “19.”
11 Exhs. “5” and “5-B.”
12 Exhs. “6” and “6-A.”
13 Exh. “13.”
14 Exhs. “14” and “14-A.”
15 Exh. “2-C.”
149
VOL. 375, JANUARY 30, 2002 149

BUSINESS INVESTMENTS YEAR AMOUNT

1. Philippine Commercial
16
and 1968- P24,800
Industrial Bank 1970;1980
17
2. Social Studies Publication 1971 10,000
3. Admiral Investment & Financing 1965-1981 24,060
Corp.
4. Admiral Development Corp. 3,200
18
5. Far East Bank & Trust Co. 1971-1972 19,030
6. Lakeview Industrial Corp. 1973 10,000
19
7. Phil. Banking Corporation 1970 4,000
1983 5,200
BUSINESS INVESTMENTS YEAR AMOUNT

8. Mabuhay Airways Phils., Inc. 1974 10,000
9. Menzi Development Corp. 1974 5,000
10. LRW Realty & Development 1975 300,000
20
11. Astra Financing Corporation 1981 25,000
21
12. J.R. Garments Corporation 1982 300,000
1983 150,000
13. Manila Hilton 1,400
TOTAL P891,690
OTHER INVESTMENTS
1. Philippine Columbian Club 1968-1975 P24,750
2. Makati Sports Club 1975 25,000
3. Manila Polo Club 1978 32,000
4. Baguio Country Club 1985 60,000
TOTAL P141,750
_______________
16 Exh. “28.”
17 Exh. “23.”
18 Exh. “27.”
19 Exh. “26.”
20 Exhs. “22” and “22-A.”
21 Exh. “20.”
150

To recapitulate, the total cost of the properties, business

investments and other investments acquired by Bugarin
during his incumbency as NBI Director is as follows:
Real Property P1,705,583

Business Investments 891,690
Other Investments 141,750
TOTAL P2,739,023
As to his income, he attempted to prove that aside from

those mentioned in his Answer, he also earned the
following amounts:
Proceeds from the sale of a 22

P15,000.00
parcel of land in Iloilo City in 1968
Proceeds from the sale of his real23 P300,000.00

property in Quezon City in 1984
Profits in stock transaction in 1983 P63,862.00
Pensions from the Philippine Government P49,000.00
as veteran at P220 per month from July
1967 to March 1986
Professional Fee received from
24
the China P55,000.00
Bank and Africa Law office
Outstanding balance as of 28
25
February 1989 of P775,073.38
GSIS loan obtained in 1983
Pension from the United States Government $8,512.00
as World War I veteran
Rental income from the lease of his houses in P1,748,640
Dasmariñas Village, Makati; Valle Verde, Pasig;
and Greenhills, San Juan, from 1981 to 1986
_______________
22 Exh. “3-B.”
23 Exh. “35-A.”
24 Exh. “3.”
25 Exh. “2.”
151
VOL. 375, JANUARY 30, 2002 151

In its 71-page decision, the Sandiganbayan excluded the

allowances from the DDB, Napolcom and Central Bank on
the ground that they were given to Bugarin in the nature of
reimbursement, which would imply that they had been
spent for the purpose for which they were earmarked and
could not have therefore been used in purchasing the
subject properties. Anent the professional fees, the
Sandiganbayan held that “while the same may be
considered as unlawful income, forfeiture thereof . . . or . . .
of the properties equivalent to said amount is not part of
the subject matter of the petition.” As to the amount of
P63,862.50 alleged to have been his profits from stock
transactions, the same turned out to be the tax paid on the
gains realized by him in stock transactions in 1983 and,
hence, not allowable as part of his income. Also excluded
from his disposable funds were the alleged pensions from
the U.S. and Philippine governments, since the evidence
presented were merely
26
checks dated 1 February 1990 in
the amount
27
of $38 and 31 January 1990 in the amount of
P220, respectively, albeit payable to Bugarin. It then
summarized respondent’s lawful income and disposable

funds, thus:
Source of Income Amount Amount
1. Salary, allowances and other emoluments P743,243.65
of respondent as NBI Director (not dis
puted by the petitioner) .......................................
2. Proceeds from sale of Quezon City lot P300,000.00
(Exhs. 35, 35-A and 36)
........................................
3. Proceeds from sale of Iloilo City lot (Exh. P15,000.00
3-B)
........................................................................
4. Rental Income earned by respondent P1,748,640.00
from the lease of his houses in Dasmari
ñas Village, Makati; Valle Verde, Pasig;
and San Juan (Exhs. 39-A, 40-A, 41-A,
43-A and 44-A) ...................................................
Total lawful income earned by respondent from P2,806,883.65
1967-1986
.......................................................................
_______________
26 Exh. “48.”
27 Exh. “48-A.”
152

Outstanding loan balance re:

GSIS loan obtained by respondent in 1983, P775,073.38
representing additional disposable funds
by him (Exh. 2)
.....................................................
28
Respondent’s total lawful income and addi P3,581,957.03
tional disposable funds ......................................
Respondent’s real property acquisitions and
investments were summarized by the
Sandiganbayan as follows:
Real property acquisitions/Investments Amount

1. Real properties P1,705,583
2. Business investments 906,690
3. Other investments 141,750
Total P2,754,023
Apart from the amounts necessary for funding his property

acquisitions and business investments, the Sandiganbayan
declared as chargeable against his lawful income and
disposable funds the amount of P497,094 representing tax
payments made by the respondent from 1981 to 1986, as
well as P310,000 representing family and personal
expenses, using as basis therefor his Statement of Assets
and Liabilities for the period ending 31 December 1969,
which states that his family and personal expenses for the
years 1967 and 1968 were P15,000 and P16,000,
respectively. Hence, from 1967 to 1986, respondent’s total
cash outflow amounted to P3,561,117. The Sandiganbayan
then concluded in this wise:
All things considered, it can be clearly seen that while respondent

earned a total lawful income of P2,806,883.65 from 1967 to 1986,
and had additional funds of P775,073.38 sourced through a loan
from GSIS, thereby accounting for total funds of P3,581,957.03, he
bought real properties and engaged in business and other
investments having a total worth of P2,754,023.00 during the
same period. At the same time, he made tax payments of
P497,094.00 and incurred an estimated family and personal
expenses from 1967 to 1986 of P310,000.00. Summed up,
respondent Bug-
_______________
28 OR, 754.
153
VOL. 375, JANUARY 30, 2002 153

arin’s total cash outflow from 1967 to 1986 amounted to

P3,561,117.00 out of his lawful income and source of funds (or a
total cash inflow) valued at P3,581,957.03. We therefore reach the
inevitable conclusion that respondent Bugarin funded his real
property acquisitions and business and other investments out of
his lawful income as NBI Director and other legitimate sources of
financing . . . . Respondent Bugarin was able to explain to the
satisfaction of this Court that aside from his income as NBI
Director, he also earned substantial amounts from the sale by his
wife of two parcels of land, and rental income from the lease of his
three residential houses in Makati, Pasig, and San Juan. He also
obtained a loan from the GSIS. These fund, all lawfully acquired,
were utilized by him in 29
financing his various acquisitions and
business undertakings.
Based on these findings, the Sandiganbayan dismissed the

petition for forfeiture on the ground of insufficiency of
evidence.
Hence, this petition wherein petitioner maintains that
the Sandiganbayan “seriously erred” in holding that
WHILE THE AMOUNTS OF P490,000.00 (PROFESSIONAL

FEES FROM THE SAN JUAN, AFRICA, GONZALES AND SAN
AGUSTIN LAW OFFICE) AND P55,000.00 (PROFESSIONAL
FEES CONTAINED IN THE STATEMENT OF ASSETS AND
LIABILITIES AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1969) MAY BE
CONSIDERED AS UNLAWFUL INCOME, FORFEITURE
THEREOF OR OF RESPONDENT’S PROPERTIES
EQUIVALENT TO SAID AMOUNT NOT BEING PART OF THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PETITION CANNOT BE
GRANTED.
RESPONDENT’S OUTSTANDING LOAN BALANCE TO GSIS
AMOUNTING TO P775,073.38 AS OF FEBRUARY 28, 1989,
WHILE NOT TO BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF HIS INCOME,
CONSTITUTES PART OF THE AGGREGATE OF FUNDS USED
BY HIM IN CAPITALIZING HIS PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS
AND BUSINESS INVESTMENTS.
RESPONDENT’S TOTAL INCOME OF P1,748,640.00 FROM
THE LEASE OF HIS HOUSES IN DASMARIÑAS VILLAGE,
MAKATI, VALLE VERDE, PASIG, AND SAN JUAN SHOULD
BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF HIS LAWFUL INCOME.
_______________
29 OR, 763-764.
154

IT IS THE ACQUISITION COST OF THE PROPERTY OR

BUSINESS INVESTMENT PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED AND
NOT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE THEREOF AT THE TIME OF
ACQUISITION WHICH SHOULD BE MADE THE BASIS IN
DETERMINING THE VALUE OF RESPONDENT’S TOTAL
ACQUISITION DURING THE PERIOD CONSIDERED.
RESPONDENT’S TOTAL FAMILY AND PERSONAL
EXPENSES PER YEAR WOULD AMOUNT TO P15,500.00
ONLY.
RESPONDENT BUGARIN FUNDED HIS REAL PROPERTY
ACQUISITION AND BUSINESS AND OTHER INVESTMENTS
OUT OF HIS LAWFUL INCOME AS NBI DIRECTOR

30
AND
OTHER LEGITIMATE SOURCES OF FINANCING.
It is well-settled that the appellate jurisdiction of the

Supreme Court over decisions or final orders of 31the
Sandiganbayan is limited only to questions of law. A
question of law exists when the doubt or controversy
concerns the correct application of law or jurisprudence to a
certain set of facts; or when the issue does not call for an
examination of the probative value of the evidence 32
presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted.
A question of fact exists when the doubt or difference arises
as to the truth or falsehood of facts or when the query
invites calibration of the whole evidence considering
mainly the credibility of the witnesses, the existence and
relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances as well as
their relation to each other 33
and to the whole, and the
probability of the situation.
The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. It is not the
Court’s function to examine and weigh all over again the
evidence pre-
_______________
30 Rollo, 31-32.
31 Rodriguez v. Sandiganbayan, 177 SCRA 220, 225 [1989] citing
Gabison v. Sandiganbayan, 151 SCRA 61 [1987].
32 Uniland Resources v. Development Bank of the Philippines, 200
SCRA 751, 755 [1991]; Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. Court of
Appeals, 258 SCRA 186, 199 [1996]; China Road and Bridge Corp. v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 137898, 15 December 2000, 348 SCRA 401.
33 China Road and Bridge Corp. v. Court of Appeals, supra.
155
VOL. 375, JANUARY 30, 2002 155

34
sented in the proceedings below. Thus, it is the policy of
the Court to sustain the factual findings of the trial court,
such as the Sandiganbayan, on the reasonable presumption
that the latter court is in a better position to assess the
evidence before it.
While the petitioner concedes that the Sandiganbayan’s
findings of facts are conclusive upon this Court, it invokes
35
the exceptions laid down in Dischoso v. Court of Appeals,
to wit: “(1) when the conclusion is a finding grounded
entirely on speculation, surmise, and conjectures; (2) when
the inference made is manifestly absurd, mistaken, or

impossible; (3) x x x; (4) when the judgment is premised on
a misapprehension of facts; (5) x x x.”
A plain reading of the Sandiganbayan’s decision exposed
manifest errors and misapprehension of facts, which
impelled us to pore over the evidence extant from the
records. After a careful perusal thereof and of the
arguments of the parties, we have come up with the
following conclusions.
I. Income from Private Practice of Profession.
We agree with the respondent that the professional fee he

received from the law firm of San Juan, Africa, Gonzales
and San Agustin from 1978 to 1986 in the amount of
P70,000 per annum, as well as that in the amount of
P55,000 reflected in his Statement of Assets and Liabilities
for the period ending 31 December 1969, should not be
excluded as part of his lawful income or disposable funds.
Section 12, Rule XVIII of Civil Service Rules provides:
Sec. 12. No officer or employee shall engage directly in any private

business, vocation, or profession or be connected with any
commercial, credit, agricultural, or industrial undertaking
without a written permission from the head of the Department:
Provided, That this prohibition will be absolute in the case of
those officers and employees whose duties and responsibilities
require that their entire time be at the disposal of the
Government: Provided, further, That if an employee is granted
permission to engage in outside activities, the time so devoted
outside of office hours
_______________
34 Trade Unions of the Philippines v. Laguesma, 236 SCRA 586, 591 [1994];
Navarro v. Court of Appeals, 209 SCRA 612, 623 [1992].
35 192 SCRA 169, 175 [1990].
156

should be fixed by the chief of the agency to the end that it will
not impair in any way the efficiency of the officer or employee:
and provided, finally, that no permission is necessary in the case
of investments, made by an officer or employee, which do not
involve any real or apparent conflict between his private interests
and public duties or in any way influence him in the discharge of

his duties, and he shall not take part in the management of the
enterprise or become an officer or member of the board of
directors. (Italics supplied).
Respondent was engaged as a consultant on “handwriting,

document examination and evaluation,36 ballistics,
fingerprinting and other specialized projects.” He claimed
that he rendered his services as such outside of office
hours, which services did not conflict with his official
functions as NBI Director. He was given permission by his
superior to act as a consultant, but he could not find among
his files the written permission allegedly given to him in
1967. At any rate, he did not conceal his consultancy
services and the corresponding fees he received; in fact, he
stated them in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities he
submitted to the Office of the Secretary of Justice, as well
as in his Income Tax Returns.
Even assuming that he had no prior written authority to
act as a consultant of a private entity, respondent’s
violation of the
37
Rule—lack of prior permission—was a
technical one. At most, it would subject him to the
administrative penalty provided in the Civil Service Rules
had the proper charge been filed against him. Such
violation did not amount to 38
a crime or graft and corrupt
practice as defined by law. Hence, we are of the opinion
that his professional fees should be included in the
computation of his lawful income.
II. Outstanding Balance of his Loan from the GSIS
It is unquestionable that the outstanding loan balance of

respondent’s obligation to the GSIS in the amount of
P775,073.38 as of 28 February 1989 did not constitute as
respondent’s “income” in the strict sense of the word. The
same, however, formed part of the
_______________
36 Exh. “31.”
37 Ramos v. Rada, 65 SCRA 179, 180 [1975].
38 Macariola v. Asuncion, 114 SCRA 77, 102 [1982].
157
VOL. 375, JANUARY 30, 2002 157

disposable funds used by him in capitalizing his property

acquisition and business investments.
In Republic v. Intermediate Appellate Court,39 which was
also a case for forfeiture of unexplained wealth, this Court
gave weight to the evidence adduced by the respondents
therein indicating that the purchase by them of real
properties and the construction of a house were partly
financed through personal loans, and loans from the GSIS
and the Development Bank of the Philippines.
In the present case, however, the loan from the GSIS in
the sum of P995,000.00 was granted only on 20 May 1983.
We cannot, therefore, sustain respondent’s claim that it
was his source of fund in the construction of his house in
Greenhills, San Juan, which was undertaken in 1980, there
being no competent evidence that he obtained other loans
to initially finance such construction and that the GSIS
loan proceeds were in fact used by him in repaying such
loans. These loan proceeds could have been, at most, part of
the funds he utilized in acquiring properties in 1983 or
thereafter.
III. Rental Income from the Lease of his houses in

Dasmariñas Village, Makati; Valle Verde, Pasig; and
Greenhills, San Juan
It bears emphasis that, as borne out by his own summary

of property acquisitions, most of his assets were acquired in
1980 and in the preceding years. The rental income of
P1,748,640, which the Sandiganbayan included as part of
his disposable funds, were for the period from 1981 to 1986.
Thus, such income could not have been used by respondent
in financing the purchase of his real properties and
shareholdings in various companies prior to 1981. Besides,
as will be shown later, there exists an unshakable doubt on
the legality of this income, considering that the properties
from which such income was derived were not wholly
funded by lawful income.
_______________
39 172 SCRA 296 [1989].
158

IV. Basis for Determining the Value of Respondent’s

Assets
In ascertaining the value of respondent’s properties and

shareholdings, it is not the fair market value, as claimed by
the petitioner, that should be made as basis thereof.
Rather, as correctly held by the Sandiganbayan, it is the
acquisition cost thereof, since it was the actual amount of
money shelled out by respondent in acquiring them. It is
the acquisition cost that must be charged against
respondent’s lawful income and funds.
Neither can we sustain petitioner’s bare allegation that
the cost or consideration of the subject properties stated in
the contracts were understated for tax evasion purposes.
Absent any evidence to support it, such claim deserves a
short shrift for being merely speculative or conjectural.
V. Family and Personal Expenses
In coming out with the figure P310,000 representing his

personal and family expenses during his tenure as NBI
Director, respondent court adopted as basis those supplied
by private respondent in his Statement of Assets and
Liabilities for the period ending 31 December 1969, which
were P15,000 for 1967 and P16,000 for 1968. It proceeded
to extrapolate the total figure for the entire period material
to the forfeiture proceeding by multiplying the resulting
annual average of P15,500 by 20 years.
Owing to the inflation and consequent decline of the
purchasing power Philippine peso throughout the period in
question, Bugarin’s total and personal expenses, as
conceded by the Sandiganbayan, was extremely a
conservative one. But, just like the Sandiganbayan, we can
neither come up with a greater amount in the absence of
any other evidence in support thereof. Indeed, the
determination thereof cannot be left to conjecture or
guesswork.
VI. Sufficiency of Respondent’s Explanation of His

Property Acquisitions
Section 2 of R.A. No. 1379 provides that whenever any

public officer or employee has acquired during his
incumbency property which is manifestly out of proportion
to his salary as such public
159
VOL. 375, JANUARY 30, 2002 159

officer or employee and to his other lawful income and

income from legitimately acquired property, the said
property shall be presumed prima facie to have been
unlawfully acquired. Section 5 thereof provides for a
hearing during which the respondent is given an ample
opportunity to explain, to the satisfaction of the court, how
he has acquired the property in question. It is only when
the respondent is unable to show that his asset acquisitions
were lawfully made that such property shall be forfeited in
favor of the State.
From the summary of Bugarin’s assets, it can readily be
seen that all of his real properties were purchased or
constructed, as the case may be, from 1968 to 1980. The
total acquisition cost thereof was P1,705,583. With the
exception of those that had been liquidated, those acquired
from 1981 onward, and those whose year of acquisition
could not be determined, his shareholdings in various
corporations and other investments amounted to P464,580.
Hence, for the period from 1968 to 1980, he amassed
wealth in the amount of P2,170,163.
On the other hand, his total income from 1967 to 1980
amounted only to P766,548, broken down as follows:
Professional fees reflected in his Statement P55,000
of Assets and Liabilities for 31 December 1969
Professional fees from the Law Firm of San Juan, P210,000
Africa, Gonzales, and San Agustin from 1978 to
1980 at the rate of P70,000 per annum
Proceeds from the sale of his lot in Iloilo City in 1968 P15,000
Salaries and Allowances from the NBI P486,548
as reflected in his Income Statement
40
(assuming that this is accurate)
Total P766,548
It bears repeating that the proceeds of the loan granted to

him by the GSIS in 1983 and the rental income from 1981
to 1986, as well as the proceeds of the sale of his real
property in 1984, could
_______________
40 Exh. “38.”
160

not have been utilized by him as his funds for the real
properties and investments he acquired in 1980 and in the
preceding years. His lawful income for the said period
being only P766,548, the same was grossly insufficient to
finance the acquisition of his assets for the said period
whose aggregate cost was P2,170,163. This gross disparity
would all the more be emphasized had there been evidence
of his actual family and personal expenses and tax
payments.
Premises considered, respondent’s properties acquired
from 1968 to 1980 which were out of proportion to his
lawful income for the said period should be forfeited in
favor of the government for failure of the respondent to
show, to the Court’s satisfaction, that the same were
lawfully acquired.
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the
Sandiganbayan is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
The petition is GRANTED, and the properties of
respondent JOLLY BUGARIN acquired from 1968 to 1980
which were disproportionate to his lawful income during
the said period are ordered forfeited in favor of petitioner
Republic of the Philippines. Let this case be REMANDED
to the Sandiganbayan for proper determination of
properties to be forfeited in petitioner’s favor.
Melo, Vitug, Quisumbing, Buena, Ynares-Santiago,

Sandoval-Gutierrez and Carpio, JJ., concur.
Bellosillo, J., No part due to relationship to a party.
Puno, J., No part due to relation with respondent in
the DOJ.
Kapunan, J., I join Justice Pardo in his dissenting
opinion.
Mendoza, J., No part. Prior relationship with party.
Panganiban, J., No part—close family relations
with a party.
Pardo, J., I dissent. See dissenting opinion
attached.
De Leon, Jr., J., No part. Signatory in SB Decision.
161
VOL. 375, JANUARY 30, 2002 161

DISSENTING OPINION
PARDO, J.:
With much regret, I respectfully dissent from the decision

that orders the forfeiture of the properties of respondent
Jolly R. Bugarin acquired from 1968 to 1980 during his
tenure as Director, National Bureau of Investigation, in
favor of the petitioner Republic of the Philippines.
We explain our view.
We start with the basic proposition that when a public
officer or employee has acquired during his incumbency in
a public office an amount of property which is “manifestly
out of proportion to his salary as such public officer or
employee and to his other lawful income and the income
from legitimately acquired property, said property shall be1
presumed prima facie to have been unlawfully 2
acquired”
and subject to forfeiture in favor of the State.
I submit, however, that as found by the Sandiganbayan,
respondent Bugarin was able to show to the satisfaction of
the court that he has lawfully acquired the properties in
question.
Hereunder is a list of property acquired by respondent
during his incumbency as NBI director from 1967 to 1986:
A. Real Estate
Kind Year Acquired Acquisition Cost
Residential Lot Makati, MM 1968-69 P91,140.00
Residential House Makati, MM 1969 175,900.00
Residential Lot Pasig, MM 1976 263,264.26
Residential House Pasig, MM 1978 250,000.00
Residential Lot
_______________
1 R.A. No. 1379, Section 2.

2 Ibid., Sec. 6.
162

San Juan, MM 1973 87,288.00

Residential House San Juan, MM 1980 620,000.00
Residential Lot Quezon City 1973 72,750.00

Residential Lot Calapan, Or. Mindoro 1978 5,000.00
Orchard & Cocoland Puerto Galera, 1978 1,000.00
Oriental Mindoro
Nine (9) Residential Lots Tagaytay City 1968- 9,340.00
73
Condominium Unit, Montepino 1973 100,000.00
Condominium Baguio City
Total P1,675,682.26
B. Business Investments Amount

J. R. Garments Corporation P 450,000.00
Astra Finance Corporation 25,000.00
Social Studies Publication, Inc. 10,000.00
Lakeview Industrial Corporation 10,000.00
Admiral Investment and Development Corp. 3,200.00
Admiral Investment & Financing 24,060.00
Manila Hilton 1,400.00
Phil. Banking Corporation 9,200.00
Mabuhay Airways Philippines, Inc. 10,000.00
Menzi Development Corporation 5,000.00
Far East Bank & Trust Co. 19,030.00
LRW Realty & Development Corporation 300,000.00
Phil. Commercial and Industrial Bank 24,800.00
Total .................................. P891,690.00
C. Other Business Investments
Baguio Country Club 60,000.00
Manila Polo Club 32,000.00
Philippine Columbian Club 24,750.00
Makati Sports Club 25,000.00
Total .................................. P141,750.00
163
VOL. 375, JANUARY 30, 2002 163

The ponencia, however, questions the following:
I. Outstanding balance of GSIS loan.—
The ponencia states that the loan from the GSIS in the sum
of P995,000.00 was granted only on 20 May 1983. And
concluded that it could not be respondent’s source of funds

in the construction of his house in North Greenhills which
was undertaken in 1980.
It is a fact, however, that respondent Bugarin acquired
the North Greenhills lot in 1973, with an area of 3727
square meters for P87,288.00 from Ortigas and Co, Ltd. He
paid a downpayment of P17,448.00, in July 1973, the
balance payable in monthly installments
4
of P1,455.00 from
July 1973 to September 1977. On July 10, 1973,
respondent Bugarin obtained
5
a loan from the GSIS in the
amount of P230,000.00. Surely, the installments could be
paid with respondent’s salary and allowances. With the
loan from the GSIS, it more than suffices to capitalize the
acquisition of the lot at North Greenhills, San Juan, on
installments.
II. Rental income, as disposable fund.—
I beg to disagree that respondent’s rental incomes from

respondent’s realty at Dasmariñas Village (Makati) and
Valle Verde 3, Pasig were not derived from lawful sources.
I consider the property that produced the rental income as
lawfully acquired, so the rentals were lawful incomes on
which income taxes were paid. The houses at Dasmariñas
Village and Valle Verde 3 Pasig were lawfully acquired, the
rental incomes therefrom must be deemed lawful.
1). Lot and house at Palomaria St., Dasmariñas

Village, Makati.
Respondent Bugarin acquired the Dasmariñas lot

consisting of 651 square meters by purchase on October 1,
1968 from Ayala
6
Corporation at P91,140.00 or P140.00 per
square meter. He made
_______________
3 Exh. “9” and submarkings; Exhs. “5-B” and Exh. “5-B-1”.

4 Exhs. “9”, “9-B”, and “9-B-1”.
5 Exh. “2-B”.
6 Exhs. “1” to “1-C”.
164

a downpayment on October 1, 1968 of P27,342.00. On

November 6, 1968, he paid an installment of P27,342.00. 7
He paid the balance of P36,456.00 in October 1969. He
paid for this lot from available
8
funds, savings, sale of assets
and short term loans. As said, he had a loan of9
P100,000.00 from the GSIS obtained on April 23, 1969,
which could easily fund the purchase. In 1969, respondent
had a residential house constructed on the above-
mentioned lot at a cost of P175,900.00. The construction
was financed by the loan from the GSIS in the amount of
P100,000.00 and from short term loans from PCIB, PNB,
and the proceeds of sale of assets. On July 10, 1973, he
obtained a loan of P230,000.00 from the GSIS. He used the
loan to repay the advances of the contractor and to repay
the short term loans. Thereafter, the house was rented for
a substantial amount, including advance rentals.
2) Lot at Ipil St., Valle Verde 3, Pasig.—
This lot with an area of 721 square meters was purchased

10
from Ortigas & Co., Ltd. on March 17, 1976, at
P263,155.00 or P365.00 per square meter.
The downpayment was P83,000.00 paid on November 4,
1975, and the balance was paid on March 17, 1976. The
fund used to acquire this lot came from savings and sale of
investment. It will be noted that on July 10, 1973,
respondent11 Bugarin obtained a loan of P230,000.00 from
the GSIS. On December 24, 1973, respondent Bugarin
obtained a loan of P90,950.00 and on January 13, 1975, he
obtained 12another loan of P90,000.00, both from the
PCIBank.
3) Residential house at Valle Verde 3 lot.
In 1978, respondent Bugarin had a three-bedroom house

with swimming pool constructed in the above lot.
Construction cost was
_______________
7 Exh. “1-1-C”.
8 Exhs. “30”, “30-a” and “30-b”.
9 Exh. “2-A”.
10 Exh. “5-B”.
11 Exh. “2-B”.
12 Exh. “19”.
165
VOL. 375, JANUARY 30, 2002 165

13
P250,000.00. The construction was funded by a loan from 14
the BPI on November 22, 1977 in the sum of P300,000.00.
4) Residential house at North Greenhills.—
This house was constructed in 1980 at a cost of

P650,000.00
15
on the lot acquired in 1973 from Ortigas and
Co., Ltd. The construction was financed from savings,
proceeds of sale of investments and short term loans and
advances. In 1983, respondent16
Bugarin was granted a loan
of P995,000.00 by the GSIS which he used to repay the
advances of the contractor and other suppliers.
5) Residential lot at Quezon City, Transfer Certificate

of Title No. 18955.—
This residential lot situated at Capitol District, Quezon

City, with an area of 582 square meters, was purchased
17
on
March 20, 1973, from BF Homes, Inc. for P72,750.00. This
purchase was an installment sale. Respondent Bugarin
paid P21,825.00 in cash and the balance amounting to
P50,925.00 was paid in installments at P611.00 a month,
later increased to P813.00, effective December 1, 1979.
Consequently, we take the view that respondent
Bugarin was able to show by clear and convincing evidence
that his acquisitions of the above realty were from lawful
sources of funds—his salary and allowances, loans, sale of
assets and other lawful transactions, and rentals from
leased properties.
Finally, we come to the summation.
The ponencia concludes that from 1968 to 1980,
respondent Bugarin “amassed wealth in the amount of
P2,170,163.00” (at p. 14, ponencia). The total included
business and other investments up to 1980 (see ponencia,
at p. 4).
_______________
13 Exh. “6”, testimony of Pablo R. Antonio, Jr.

14 Exh. “6-A.”
15 Exh. “2-D”.
16 Exhs. “2” and “2-C”.
17 Exh. “10”.
166

On the other hand, respondent’s salary and other lawful

income and disposable funds (loans) during the period from
1968 to 1980 may be summarized as follows:
a) Professional fees P
.......................................................... 55,000.00
b) Professional fees from Africa Law Office 210,000.00
...........................................................
c) Sale of Iloilo Property 15,000.00
....................................................
d) Salary and allowances, NBI 486.548.00
................................................................................
TOTAL ........................................ P766,548.00
(ponencia, pp. 14-15).
Unfortunately, the ponencia did not consider the following

lawful income of the respondent, to wit:
a) Representation and transportation allowance P 40,450.00

(RATA) and per diems, Dangerous Drugs Board
.......
b) Representation and transportation allowance 83,400.00
(RATA), NAPOLCOM
...................................................
18
c) Consultancy fees, honorarium, gift, bonus from 429,000.00
Central Bank of the Philippines
.................................
19
d) Rental income from lease of Dasmariñas Village 800,323.00
and Valle Verde 3 houses
.........................................
e) Loans from various 779,925.00
sources.......................................
TOTAL .......................... P2,899,646.00
Even the ponencia admitted that the proceeds of loan may

constitute disposable funds in capitalizing respondent’s
property
20
acquisitions and business investments (ponencia,
p. 11).
Thus, respondent’s total salary and lawful income
including disposable funds more than sufficed to fund the
respondent’s acquisitions and business transactions.
_______________
18 Exhs. “34”, “34-A”, “34-B”, “34-C”.
19 Respondent’s memorandum, Annex “C”, Rollo, pp. 208-210.

20 Republic v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 172 SRA 295 [1989].
167
VOL. 375, JANUARY 30, 2002 167

Serondo vs. Court of Appeals
Acquisitions P2,170,163.00 (p. 15,

............................................. ponencia)
Lawful salary, income 2,899,646.00
and available funds
................................
Excess of lawful income, etc. over P729,483.00.
acquisitions
....................................
IN VIEW WHEREOF, I vote to dismiss the petition and to

affirm the appealed decision of the Sandiganbayan.
No costs.
Judgment reversed and set aside, petition granted.
Properties of respondent Jolly Bugarin ordered forfeited in
favor of petitioner for being disproportionate to his income.
Note.—It is not the function of the Supreme Court to

weigh anew the evidence already passed upon by the Court
of Appeals. (Gold Loop Properties, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals,
306 SCRA 639 [1999])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

9 Republic V Sandiganbayan PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

9 Republic V Sandiganbayan PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 375

VOL. 375, JANUARY 30, 2002 145

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.

Remedial Law; Courts; Jurisdiction; The appellate

146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. Sandiganbayan

Same; Same; Same; Supreme Court is not a trier of facts.—

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Persistent in its efforts to recover the alleged unexplained

** This case was reassigned to the ponente pursuant to the Resolution of

VOL. 375, JANUARY 30, 2002 147

ficiency of evidence, its petition for forfeiture

salaries, allowances, and other emoluments from 1 July

2 Entitled An Act Declaring Forfeiture in Favor of the State Any

148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

REAL PROPERTY YEAR ACQUISITION

REAL PROPERTY YEAR ACQUISITION

5 Exhibits “1,” “1-B” and “1-C.”

VOL. 375, JANUARY 30, 2002 149

BUSINESS INVESTMENTS YEAR AMOUNT

BUSINESS INVESTMENTS YEAR AMOUNT

150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

To recapitulate, the total cost of the properties, business

Real Property P1,705,583

As to his income, he attempted to prove that aside from

Proceeds from the sale of a 22

Proceeds from the sale of his real23 P300,000.00

VOL. 375, JANUARY 30, 2002 151

In its 71-page decision, the Sandiganbayan excluded the

summarized respondent’s lawful income and disposable

152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Outstanding loan balance re:

Real property acquisitions/Investments Amount

Apart from the amounts necessary for funding his property

All things considered, it can be clearly seen that while respondent

VOL. 375, JANUARY 30, 2002 153

arin’s total cash outflow from 1967 to 1986 amounted to

Based on these findings, the Sandiganbayan dismissed the

WHILE THE AMOUNTS OF P490,000.00 (PROFESSIONAL

154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

IT IS THE ACQUISITION COST OF THE PROPERTY OR

OUT OF HIS LAWFUL INCOME AS NBI DIRECTOR

It is well-settled that the appellate jurisdiction of the

VOL. 375, JANUARY 30, 2002 155

the inference made is manifestly absurd, mistaken, or

I. Income from Private Practice of Profession.

We agree with the respondent that the professional fee he

Sec. 12. No officer or employee shall engage directly in any private

156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

and public duties or in any way influence him in the discharge of

Respondent was engaged as a consultant on “handwriting,

II. Outstanding Balance of his Loan from the GSIS

It is unquestionable that the outstanding loan balance of

VOL. 375, JANUARY 30, 2002 157

disposable funds used by him in capitalizing his property

III. Rental Income from the Lease of his houses in

It bears emphasis that, as borne out by his own summary

39 172 SCRA 296 [1989].

158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

IV. Basis for Determining the Value of Respondent’s

In ascertaining the value of respondent’s properties and

V. Family and Personal Expenses